memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Hravishran th'Zoarhi
The name "Thy'lek" was from Archer's biography (barely) seen in the Mirror Universe Enterprise episodes. It hasn't been used elsewhere, and isn't considered canon. It's very possible that Pocket will give Shran a different full name, and until that happens, I'd suggest moving this to "Shran." --TimPendragon 16:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Of course the "Th" in "Thy'lek" works perfectly for the novels take on Andorian genders, making Shran a Thaan.--Turtletrekker 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC) :Well except that it's in the wrong order it would be Diddleshran Th'y'lek or something, aaanywho, I say keep it until it's superseded, we are using the bios for Hoshi and Archer's histories. -- 8of5 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC) :well, there is a precedent for changing andorian name structure -- remember that Pava Ek'Noor sh'Aqabaa (as a youth in Starfleet Academy) had an incomplete name that was expanded on in Titan -- couldn't it be possible his name is Thy'lek Hravishran th'Zoarhi, where Thy'lek acts as a superfluous first name? (kind of how Charles Montgomery Burns usually just goes as Montgomery Burns, to use a fictional example?)-- Captain M.K.B. 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC) ::The Good That Men Do makes no mention of "Thy'lek." I would simply presume that it's just as apocryphal as "Hravishran" and that the novel has simply decided not to utilize it in this continuity. -- Sci 14:34 7 MARCH 2007 UTC :::That particular novel has not utilized it, but the canon episode and another novel have -- we have to accept this as a case of a single character who was given two different names on different occasions.. it is entirely possible that (as with Pava) there are Andorian "third" names that rarely get mentioned, so this isn't necessarily a contradiction or a case of "one canceling the other out" -- they both exist. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC) ::::Until we see evidence that "Thy'lek" exists in the ENT Relaunch continuity, it is more logical to presume that it is as apocryphal as "Hravishran" and is not present in the Relaunch continuity. And let's not over-state its status in "In A Mirror, Darkly" -- it was something that was on an illegible Okudagram for two seconds; it's pretty obviously apocryphal, even there. It's certainly possible that it may turn out to exist in the Relaunch continuity, but there is no evidence that it does, and there is evidence of an apparent contradiction; why would the narration have started the chapter off with "Hravishran th'Zoarhi..." and then had his internal monologue refer to the days when he was simply known as "Shran" if the intent was not to establish his full name and contrast it to his informal given name? There's a contradiction; this contradiction may be retconned in future novels to incorporate "Thy'lek," but it hasn't yet. MB's policy is not to integrate contradictions, but to simply record the information and note contradictions. -- Sci 14:51 7 MARCH 2007 UTC :::Is there really a policy of how to choose when disregarding one source in favor of another? I'd love to read this... :::By the way, I certainly disagree with your most recent edit. Why would it be such a problem to note the canon name also? -- Captain M.K.B. 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC) ::::I'm not sure if it's a "policy," but it's simply what's always been done at MB. Look at the numerous contradictory Federation Presidents -- when there's a contradiction, we've just assigned one president to a separate continuity. After all, we deal in apocryphal information here, and not all of it is consistent. In any event, the "Thy'lek" name is noted -- but it's rather obviously not a canon name, because if it had been, "Hravishran" would not have been allowed to be established. -- Sci 1525 :::Re: policy -- we should write a policy then, because I have no clue how things are done at MB sometimes :::Re: Thy'lek being "obviously not canon" -- untrue -- it is canon from an episode, its existence was confirmed by Mike Sussman, who devised the name, and who also used it in his novel. :::Re: other names "wouldn't have been allowed" -- novelists are allowed to be incorrect all the time, its artistic license, and the Paramount licensing office rarely checks such details in editing and proofreading. :::Re: one name "cancels out" the other -- that's an incorrect assumption. It is still entirely possible that both are a correct name -- just like some of us have first and middle names. There's no "rule" that says Andorians can't have names that break from the norm established by one group of writers. there's no rule they can't have a "familiar" name (like Shran) that is different from their "formal name" (Hravishran), that are both different from their family name ("zoarhi") -- why is it then unlikely they could also have a "given" name or other such thing? I'm curious why you object to this so strenuously. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC) ::::"Re: other names "wouldn't have been allowed" -- novelists are allowed to be incorrect all the time, its artistic license, and the Paramount licensing office rarely checks such details in editing and proofreading." People keep saying that, but it's not true. (Well, okay, technically it's true now, but only because Paramount licensing doesn't handle Trek novels anymore, CBS Licensing does.) Paula Block at CBS (formerly Paramount) reads through each novel, and makes sure each one is consistent with the canon. Just read her interview in Voyages of the Imagination. There have been occasional mistakes, and there have been instances where the canon was interpreted differently than most fans had interpreted, but CBS never allows intentional contradictions with the canon as it exists at the time of the writing/publication. Even The Good That Men Do had to be very careful to remain completely consistent with what "These Are the Voyages..." established about what 24th Century history recorded the fate of the NX-01 crew as being. -- Sci 19:38 7 MARCH 2007 UTC Just to add my two cents: At this time, both names have about equal currency, and so by the established practice of this wiki we should note the both "full" names for the character (right in the first line in bold) and document the discrepencies among sources. For all we know, some author will "solve" the dispute in a year or two, but until then neither one should be given precedent nor be shortchanged (but keep the page here with the Thy'lek page being a redirect, for now).--Emperorkalan 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC) :I completely agree with Emperorkalan. - Lieutenant Ayala 22:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Naming Part 2 Is it really necessary to list Shran (and, for that matter, any other Andorians or Aenar) at his full name? most people are going to look him up as Shran anyway and it's much easier to link to as Shran...--Long Live the United Earth 02:50, January 29, 2012 (UTC) :There's a redirect at Shran for that. -- BadCatMan 03:00, January 29, 2012 (UTC) Then why don't we move Spock, Skon and all the other Vulcans to their full names as well and leave a redirect?--Long Live the United Earth 03:22, January 29, 2012 (UTC) ::Sure. I'm in favour. -- BadCatMan 03:33, January 29, 2012 (UTC) :::I think that our lack of knowledge of what exactly makes up a "full Vulcan name" -- it's been plainly declared that the names we have for Spock and others are -not- full names at all because there are secret parts and parts we cannot pronounce. :::Due to this, i think "full Vulcan naming" is not something we'd be able to establish, and not really an appropriate way to name articles. -- Captain MKB 13:57, January 29, 2012 (UTC) True enough, I was just attempting to use a counterpoint to demonstrate why I feel Andorians should be at the commonly used form of their name as well. Anyway, there seems to be opposition to that so I'll let it go.--Long Live the United Earth 19:09, January 29, 2012 (UTC)